Hatten v. Rathman

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 6/17/14. (ASL)

FILED
2014 Jun-17 AM 10:38
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY HATTEN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
JOHN T. RATHMAN,
Respondent.

Case No.: 1:14-cv-0739-MHH-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINON
On April 28, 2014, the magistrate judge filed a report and recommended that
the Court dismiss without prejudice the petition for a writ habeas corpus that
Timothy Hatten filed. (Doc. 3). The magistrate judge concluded that, although the
petition invokes 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Mr. Hatten is challenging his conviction and
sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida. (Id.). Accordingly, the magistrate judge construed the petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. Because a prisoner must pursue a § 2255 motion before the
sentencing court, the magistrate judge found that this Court lacks jurisdiction over
Mr. Hatten’s petition. (Id.).
In response to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, Mr.
Hatten filed a document entitled “Petitioner’s Petition as a Matter of Law Moves to
Correct Clear Manifest Erroneous Error of Law Moves Honorable Chieftain
United States District Court Justice Sharon Lovelace Blackburn, to Rescind and
1

Revoke Magistrate Erroneous (R&R).” (Doc. 4).1 The Court will construe this
filing as Mr. Hatten’s objection to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation or, alternatively, as a motion.
Mr. Hatten contends that the magistrate judge did not employ the forgiving
pleading standard for pro se litigants which the United States Supreme Court
enunciated in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). (Doc. 4 at 2-3).
Consistent with the Haines decision, this Court has held Mr. Hatten’s petition “to
less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines, 404
U.S. at 520-21. Nevertheless, even under this relaxed pleading standard, the Court
concludes that Mr. Hatten is challenging his conviction and sentence, such that his
petition arises under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 rather than 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Consequently, Mr. Hatten must seek relief in the Southern District of Florida; this
Court lacks jurisdiction over his petition.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, the Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and ACCEPTS her
recommendation. To the extent that Mr. Hatten’s most recent filing (Doc. 4)
contains objections to the report and recommendation, the objections are

1

Although Mr. Hatten addressed his filing to the Honorable Sharon Lovelace Blackburn, this
case was randomly assigned to the undersigned judge who serves as a district court judge for the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
2

OVERRULED. To the extent that the filing (Doc. 4) is a motion, the motion is
DENIED. Accordingly, the petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
A final judgment will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this June 17, 2014.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3